Author
Topic: Traveling with picky eaters (Read 32590 times)

This would make me bonkers. We stopped traveling with friends because of the wife's picky eating habits. She refused to eat anywhere where she couldn't be guaranteed that she'd like the food. Even when they went to Hawaii they ate at McDonald's and Denny's because it was "easily recognizable and she knew what she was getting". Add to this that she was a cheapskate and it made traveling with them next to impossible.

If the picky eaters are going to be that difficult I say break off on your own and enjoy yourself.

I'm of the opinion that if they are going to be miserable regardless of where they go, then go where you want to eat. You might as well be happy.

Grin. I like this.

I have travelled with picky eaters - my sister and I did a 2 week road trip (my sister has very acute sense of taste and there are lots of things she dislikes, so she tends not to be very adventurous. My best friend is a strict vegetarian.) IN all cases, we've worked round it with communication and compromise - it did mean that we ended up eating in some tourist traps (which I would not have chosen, myself) but equally my friend ended up eating in places where she was mostly eating salad and bread and fruit - but we discussed it in advance and worked out arrangements which we were both OK with.

Your travel companions sound really inconsiderate and entitled, and I agree that talking about the issue before you go away together again is a good plan. And being prepared to say "OK, we'll eat here. See you back at the hotel / bar / museum in 2 hours"

Eat or don't eat what ever you want, but don't make it someone else's issue and don't ever, ever, ever say "no" to an idea unless you have a counter idea ready. If someone says "Chez Meathouse" and you open your guide book and say "oh, actually how about Hummus Chateau 3 blocks way", that's cool, but if someone says "Chez Meathouse" and you whine and say "but I can't eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeat there!" you can just just sit outside and pout by yourself while the rest of us get our carnivore on. Bonus if its raining and we get a window table.

This so much.

Sampling the local cuisine is a huge part of travel for me, so traveling with someone who refuses to try new things would be a non-starter. I'm just not going to do it.

There's a big difference between picky eaters and people who have medical, religious or ethical needs. These requirements have to be thoroughly discussed when travel plans are made. We can easily travel with people who are vegan, who keep Kosher or who are diabetic. We can't travel with people who demand familiar North American food in Spain, Iceland or even England. After all, sampling local specialties are a major factor in travel.

Also, picky eaters who don't have special dietary needs should not dictate the food choices of omnivores.

I don't think any of that should be dictating the choices of others. I won't go into a place where I *know* there will be smells that can set off my allergies, but I have no business saying that I won't split off so that you can try it. Same with any other choice/restriction/need/ whatever -they don't get to say " I refuse to go where you want to go, but I also refuse to allow you to go by yourself. You have to live around my choice/restriction/need or I will make your regret it/embarrass you." Which is essentially what insisting on staying together and making a scene about other people's choices is.

This. After the second time it took hours to agree on a place to eat, and after the first time of the whining and 'Eew get that away from me' I would say 'OK, I want to try __ for dinner tonight' [cue whining] 'Ok, that's fine, we can split up and meet later' Then start walking toward dinner. When they follow, whining, 'No, sorry, I'm not having a repeat of yesterday. You go find something you can enjoy and I'll do the same' If they went so far as to follow me into the restaurant, I'd say very clearly 'Table for 1, please' and completely ignore them.

Although, if I'd suffered thru this on one trip I'd be highly unlikely to travel w/ these children again. They are the living embodiment of why so many people hate tourists. I'd honestly probably tell them that too.

There's a big difference between picky eaters and people who have medical, religious or ethical needs. These requirements have to be thoroughly discussed when travel plans are made. We can easily travel with people who are vegan, who keep Kosher or who are diabetic. We can't travel with people who demand familiar North American food in Spain, Iceland or even England. After all, sampling local specialties are a major factor in travel.

Also, picky eaters who don't have special dietary needs should not dictate the food choices of omnivores.

This was part of the problem. If Picky Eater A didn't like a food, she would proclaim that she "couldn't eat it." The problem was she "couldn't eat" fish, chicken if it wasn't in tender/shredded form, beef if it wasn't served in hamburger form instead of steak, vegetables today because she had them yesterday, etc. What's worse is that Picky Eater B, if we went to a restaurant with food he didn't like, would loudly proclaim "This is disgusting! Get it away from me!" and then make a big show of having to eat other food afterwards, which was a bit embarassing.

I do like the plan of alternating picking restaurants, and opting out if the restaurant picked doesn't have anything for you.

Oh for the love of....I can't deal with people like that. The nasty TARDIS in me is inclined to lean over closer and crunch or chew loudly in the upset person's face. Polite TARDIS who behaves herself would ask the person to go elsewhere and forage somewhere else if they can't tolerate the local food. I'm quite a foodie and I don't like to listen to somebody grumbling about my food choices.

Not so much: "We all want to go to and eat bosintang. You can go eat at MacDonald's by yourself." This comes across a bit more like an ousting, and I can see why it wouldn't go over too well.

What would you suggest in this situation, where everyone but 1 person wants to try something new and local/spicy/meaty and a lone person doesn't? I think saying those people shouldn't go eat that special thing they want isn't fair either. I would be incredibly frustrated by this situation. Sometimes I feel like it ends up always ending up with the least adventurous eater getting their way. And while I wouldn't be nasty about it, nor would I be OK with going to McDonald's to keep someone company rather than eating X thing I liked.

I'd be fine with something like, they come along to the restaurant but don't eat anything, but instead eat before or after, if that works at all. Not sure if it would in all cases, though.

Bear in mind that I'm approaching this question from Thipu's perspective. I'm taking into account that one person's "picky" might be another person's allergy, intolerance, or values-based restriction. I give people who have health or moral/religions restrictions a bit more leeway than people with vast quantities of gustatory preferences.

I think absolute "My way or the highway" attitudes are pretty off-putting whether they come from the majority or minority.

I think that if one member of the group has an absolute restriction, it's better for the group to be sensitive of it. Take, for instance, seafood restaurants. There are ones around here that literally have no fish-free options (beyond, perhaps, cole slaw. . . even the chips are fried in the same oil as the fish, which ). A person who cannot eat fish for one reason or another might not have anything to eat at all if everyone goes there.

If the group is only going to be in the vicinity of this restaurant once, of course they shouldn't all be expected to skip out on it. However, I think they should do the best to accommodate the other person as well as they could. Even offering a choice (say, "Would you prefer to split up and meet later, or do you want to sit with us while we eat and we'll help you find a place to get takeaway afterward?") would be preferable than telling them that they're out of luck. If, however, the group is going to be in the area for more than one meal, it would be gracious (no necessary, but gracious) for someone to offer to accompany the person who cannot eat at the one restaurant for at least one meal elsewhere.

Logged

You have just begun reading the sentence you have just finished reading.

this. I think that *everyone* has to give a little - the very picky eaters (or people with allergies or other dietary requirements), have to sometimes be willing to eat at a more adventurous place (or at least be willing to *sit* there), and people who are adventurous might have to sit at the Gold Arches a few times.

Not me. On vacation, I don't eat what I can get at home.

I don't know, i'm not a fan of the golden arches, but if i were traveling with friends, and *everyone* was being reasonable, I would trade off a few fast food meals if they would go for a few adventurous/local/ethnic. or at least, if they would sit with me in Chez LocalEthnic, I would sit in GoldenArches.

As Thipu and others pointed out, not everyone is *just* picky- sometimes there are religious/health/ethical reasons for not eating X or Y. If someone is being SS about it, that is one thing. But if everyone is being considerate and reasonable - then yes, I would trade a few Golden Arches/Pizza etc for a few Local/Ethnic

I've been to the McDonald's in Milan....because that's where our host's daughter wanted to eat. Since they were hosting us it seems to be beyond churlish and tacky to say "no way Jose; see you in an hour." We ate at a McDonald's in Kaiserslautern not because we wanted to but because it was some big Eastery holiday and literally every other restaurant we saw was closed.

My point is it's easy to say "eat differently than home! It's why you're on vacation!" but real life sometimes intrudes. And sometimes etiquette dictates diplomacy.

this. I think that *everyone* has to give a little - the very picky eaters (or people with allergies or other dietary requirements), have to sometimes be willing to eat at a more adventurous place (or at least be willing to *sit* there), and people who are adventurous might have to sit at the Gold Arches a few times.

Not me. On vacation, I don't eat what I can get at home.

I don't know, i'm not a fan of the golden arches, but if i were traveling with friends, and *everyone* was being reasonable, I would trade off a few fast food meals if they would go for a few adventurous/local/ethnic. or at least, if they would sit with me in Chez LocalEthnic, I would sit in GoldenArches.

As Thipu and others pointed out, not everyone is *just* picky- sometimes there are religious/health/ethical reasons for not eating X or Y. If someone is being SS about it, that is one thing. But if everyone is being considerate and reasonable - then yes, I would trade a few Golden Arches/Pizza etc for a few Local/Ethnic

Another thing to consider is what I can only describe as "homesickness". Sometimes, when you are travelling in an area that is extremely foreign to you, it can just get overwhelming to always be doing things that are unfamiliar. At first, it's probably awesome and you dive right into everything. But there might come a point where you or your travelling companion can't take it anymore and you/he/she just wants a little touch of the familiar. Of course, they should phrase it that way and be polite about it, but in that case, please cut them a little slack.

I agree that all parties have to be willing to compromise in some form or another. I drove cross-country about 10 years ago with two friends. From NJ to AZ and back again. My one friend, who has gotten much better, used to be the world's pickiest eater. That being said, she was pretty good about finding SOMETHING on the menu she could eat, and told us so right off the bat. Her main issue is condiments, saucees and dressings. So she'd order a plain burger. or plain chicken. My other friend is just plain picky. I am not. I am adventerous and prefer local cuisine to places I can eat at at home. We discussed ahead of time, our food issues, i.e. one is picky, but will manage, and the fact I need to eat real meals, ice cream won't do for lunch or dinner and so on.

We did ok; we manaaged to get in some local flavor, although we did a bit more fast food than was to my liking. Given a choice between a "local" eatery and McDonalds etc. they chose the familiar.

I'd travel with them again, and have done so. I have another friend who is quite picky, and between that and some other issues regarding temperatures etc. I won't go anywhere with her if we have to share a room or make meal choices.

this. I think that *everyone* has to give a little - the very picky eaters (or people with allergies or other dietary requirements), have to sometimes be willing to eat at a more adventurous place (or at least be willing to *sit* there), and people who are adventurous might have to sit at the Gold Arches a few times.

Not me. On vacation, I don't eat what I can get at home.

I don't know, i'm not a fan of the golden arches, but if i were traveling with friends, and *everyone* was being reasonable, I would trade off a few fast food meals if they would go for a few adventurous/local/ethnic. or at least, if they would sit with me in Chez LocalEthnic, I would sit in GoldenArches.

As Thipu and others pointed out, not everyone is *just* picky- sometimes there are religious/health/ethical reasons for not eating X or Y. If someone is being SS about it, that is one thing. But if everyone is being considerate and reasonable - then yes, I would trade a few Golden Arches/Pizza etc for a few Local/Ethnic

Another thing to consider is what I can only describe as "homesickness". Sometimes, when you are travelling in an area that is extremely foreign to you, it can just get overwhelming to always be doing things that are unfamiliar. At first, it's probably awesome and you dive right into everything. But there might come a point where you or your travelling companion can't take it anymore and you/he/she just wants a little touch of the familiar. Of course, they should phrase it that way and be polite about it, but in that case, please cut them a little slack.

I've felt that too. In fact, while in Italy -- we LOVE Italy, we love Italian food -- we got to the point where we were dying to have a Diet coke with ICE. When we finally got it, we were so thrilled. (And we were equally as thrilled to eat our lovely six course meal with wine that night.) So yes, it's perfectly possible to enjoy foreign cuisine, but want the occasional touch of the familiar. That desire doesn't make one a philistine or a bad tourist, it's a sign of being human.

this. I think that *everyone* has to give a little - the very picky eaters (or people with allergies or other dietary requirements), have to sometimes be willing to eat at a more adventurous place (or at least be willing to *sit* there), and people who are adventurous might have to sit at the Gold Arches a few times.

Not me. On vacation, I don't eat what I can get at home.

I don't know, i'm not a fan of the golden arches, but if i were traveling with friends, and *everyone* was being reasonable, I would trade off a few fast food meals if they would go for a few adventurous/local/ethnic. or at least, if they would sit with me in Chez LocalEthnic, I would sit in GoldenArches.

As Thipu and others pointed out, not everyone is *just* picky- sometimes there are religious/health/ethical reasons for not eating X or Y. If someone is being SS about it, that is one thing. But if everyone is being considerate and reasonable - then yes, I would trade a few Golden Arches/Pizza etc for a few Local/Ethnic

Another thing to consider is what I can only describe as "homesickness". Sometimes, when you are travelling in an area that is extremely foreign to you, it can just get overwhelming to always be doing things that are unfamiliar. At first, it's probably awesome and you dive right into everything. But there might come a point where you or your travelling companion can't take it anymore and you/he/she just wants a little touch of the familiar. Of course, they should phrase it that way and be polite about it, but in that case, please cut them a little slack.

I've felt that too. In fact, while in Italy -- we LOVE Italy, we love Italian food -- we got to the point where we were dying to have a Diet coke with ICE. When we finally got it, we were so thrilled. (And we were equally as thrilled to eat our lovely six course meal with wine that night.) So yes, it's perfectly possible to enjoy foreign cuisine, but want the occasional touch of the familiar. That desire doesn't make one a philistine or a bad tourist, it's a sign of being human.

The desire for something familiar is one thing...dictating that others must not go to any place one does not approve of it. One's diet restrictions are one's own business, but because one has them does not mean one's choices are any more important than one's companion's. Folks can't come to a consensus? Time to split up and there is no need/choice/restriction that is so great that it gets to dictate that a group can not split up. Sorry, but people with restrictions do not get that much control over others.

this. I think that *everyone* has to give a little - the very picky eaters (or people with allergies or other dietary requirements), have to sometimes be willing to eat at a more adventurous place (or at least be willing to *sit* there), and people who are adventurous might have to sit at the Gold Arches a few times.

Not me. On vacation, I don't eat what I can get at home.

I don't know, i'm not a fan of the golden arches, but if i were traveling with friends, and *everyone* was being reasonable, I would trade off a few fast food meals if they would go for a few adventurous/local/ethnic. or at least, if they would sit with me in Chez LocalEthnic, I would sit in GoldenArches.

As Thipu and others pointed out, not everyone is *just* picky- sometimes there are religious/health/ethical reasons for not eating X or Y. If someone is being SS about it, that is one thing. But if everyone is being considerate and reasonable - then yes, I would trade a few Golden Arches/Pizza etc for a few Local/Ethnic

Another thing to consider is what I can only describe as "homesickness". Sometimes, when you are travelling in an area that is extremely foreign to you, it can just get overwhelming to always be doing things that are unfamiliar. At first, it's probably awesome and you dive right into everything. But there might come a point where you or your travelling companion can't take it anymore and you/he/she just wants a little touch of the familiar. Of course, they should phrase it that way and be polite about it, but in that case, please cut them a little slack.

That's my McDonald's story.

And Snowdragon, please remember that NOBODY has been advocating that the McDonald's eaters should always drag everybody to McDonald's.

The phrase "a few times" was very specifically inserted--please don't assume hyperbole that doesn't even exist.

I think the major point we all agree on is that BOTH sides of the spectrum should be accommodated at one time or another.

this. I think that *everyone* has to give a little - the very picky eaters (or people with allergies or other dietary requirements), have to sometimes be willing to eat at a more adventurous place (or at least be willing to *sit* there), and people who are adventurous might have to sit at the Gold Arches a few times.

Not me. On vacation, I don't eat what I can get at home.

I don't know, i'm not a fan of the golden arches, but if i were traveling with friends, and *everyone* was being reasonable, I would trade off a few fast food meals if they would go for a few adventurous/local/ethnic. or at least, if they would sit with me in Chez LocalEthnic, I would sit in GoldenArches.

As Thipu and others pointed out, not everyone is *just* picky- sometimes there are religious/health/ethical reasons for not eating X or Y. If someone is being SS about it, that is one thing. But if everyone is being considerate and reasonable - then yes, I would trade a few Golden Arches/Pizza etc for a few Local/Ethnic

Another thing to consider is what I can only describe as "homesickness". Sometimes, when you are travelling in an area that is extremely foreign to you, it can just get overwhelming to always be doing things that are unfamiliar. At first, it's probably awesome and you dive right into everything. But there might come a point where you or your travelling companion can't take it anymore and you/he/she just wants a little touch of the familiar. Of course, they should phrase it that way and be polite about it, but in that case, please cut them a little slack.

That's my McDonald's story.

And Snowdragon, please remember that NOBODY has been advocating that the McDonald's eaters should always drag everybody to McDonald's.

The phrase "a few times" was very specifically inserted--please don't assume hyperbole that doesn't even exist.

I think the major point we all agree on is that BOTH sides of the spectrum should be accommodated at one time or another.

No, we don't someone's reluctance to try new stuff, ethics, whatever, should never be dictating where others go to eat. Someone wants to go to McD's they can go - but under no circumstances would I tolerate, even once, being told I have to 'accommodate" that by eating there or even wasting time sitting there while someone else ate there. Splitting up is an option, being limited to what I can eat at a given meal because of someone else's unwillingness to make to the compromise of splitting up - is never going to be acceptable. Not to me and it seems on this thread I am not the only one who would object.